Talk:Clearwire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clearwire article.
Article policies

This page is for discussion of the Clearwire Wikipedia article, not a place to review the company and/or its services. If you want to review the product, go to http://www.broadbandreports.com.

Contents

[edit] Public company

The part on the top right of the article should be updated to show Clearwire is now a public company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.180.49 (talk • contribs).

I updated the article including the infobox you mentioned for the March 8, 2007 IPO. --Brianhe 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Only about 14% of the company's shares went public. Clearwire is still 86% privately owned.

[edit] Advertising Claims and Controversy

I'm wondering if we should add a section about advertising and controversy. Based on my experience with Clearwire reps in Seattle (mainly at Pacific Place downtown), I have some serious concerns about Clearwire's marketing. They claim, among other things, that the service is mobile (it's not - the modem is AC-powered), secure (though no one with the company can explain how), and fast (user reports vary quite a bit, as with other broadband services). See numerous comments on my blog entry here. I don't know if this warrants a separate section by Wikipedia standards, but the company is very marketing-heavy, and that marketing hinges on some very tenuous claims. Since Clearwire markets to the less-Internet-savvy, I think it's important to acknowledge these issues. Thoughts? JustinBaeder 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Brianhe 05:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking introductory rates to Tying (Razor and blades business model)

I do not feel that Clearwire's introductory offers fit into the category of tying. By Wikipedia's own definition "Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good)." There is no second distinctive good with this intro offer, it is merely an increase in price. I would like thoughts on this subject before I change it.

--Johnncyber 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's closer to bait and switch, but the bait is delivered. See False advertising#Introductory offers. 216.152.208.1 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advert Tag

Ok, I thought I would open up discussion on why it was tagged as Advert. I do not see how this is an advertisement. I explains the company from a financial prospect and explains the services that the company provides. It does not attempt to sell the reader on anything. Please discuss. MarkRomero 03:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the cause for this either. -- Brianhe 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Aside from a very rose-colored view of the company, I see no blatant advertising going on here. Still, I think it should be balanced with some opposing views. I've kicked that off with the Criticism section. 216.152.208.1 02:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed {{Advert}} tag since there was no opposition. Brianhe 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It reads like an advertisement to me. The Advert tag should be added in my opinion, or at least an NPOV tag. Fatla00 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCaw is not the "Founder" of Clearwire

I corrected the misinformation that Craig McCaw was the founder of Clearwire. It was "reverted" without any discussion in Wiki terms, as best I understand it. The idea that Mr. McCaw founded Clearwire is incorrect information, and information that is frequently mistaken in the press. He bought into Clearwire long after the company got its start. For some reason the company continues to promote the idea that Mr. McCaw founded Clearwire. He did not. Clearwire was formed from a spin-off by Dallas investors led by Rusty Rose, former owner of the Texas Rangers. Clearwire operated out of Dallas for at least five years prior to Mr. McCaw's involvement with the company. Does someone have other information showing how Mr. McCaw was involved with Clearwire back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I found two confirmations of founding by McCaw in the existing article references. Added these citations to the appropriate sentence of the article. If there's some source for the assertion above, please present it. -- Brianhe 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in other words, no discussion. Citing the company's internet site as fact is comical when Clearwire, for some reason, is the one promoting the idea that McCaw founded the company. Second, citing an article in the press as gospel is usually ok, but in this instance the press has mistakenly repeated that McCaw is the founder. So you are asking me to provide evidence to prove a negative. This is exactly the sort of stuff that gives user-generated content a bad name. So what would you like me to show you? Would you like me to send you some email from Clearwire officials long before McCaw was ever connected to the company? If I had a Lexus/Nexus account we could do searches on old press articles?? Or, did you want to discuss, or simply leave it wrong the way it is? I have not gone back in to change the misinformation again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No reason to take such a negative tone, 247. I've only asked for some evidence of what you're saying is true. A lexis/nexis search would be great. Or maybe an old newspaper article or anything else. So far we have two published sources saying he was the founder, and your word that he was not. Show us how you know what you say you know, that's all. You might want to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance. -- Brianhe 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Source: 1999 Dallas phone book, published by Southwestern Bell. Clearwire listed. 2000 Hoovers Online Directory. Profile of Clearwire, no mention of Mr. McCaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can also try looking through the archives at news.google.com. There appears to have been a number of Texas based Clearwire entities prior to 2003 (one example). A corporate history section would be a good development for this article. – Zedla 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Found a Dallas Business Journal article on this, created "Company origins" section. Bottom line, it's anyone's opinion whether he founded the current company or not, since there was a forerunner company with a similar but non identical name. Brianhe 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So, how can it be "anyone's opinion whether" McCaw founded the company? Your revised history---congratulations for finally getting this right---clearly states the company was founded by investors led by Edward "Rusty" Rose, then acquired by McCaw in 2004. So if he acquired Clearwire in 2004 how did he "found" Clearwire in 2003? Thanks for the changes.....and would appreciate some additional common sense being applied here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.174.247 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 November 2007

Clearwire Corporation was founded by McCaw and is totally different then Clearwire Technologies, as the article states. They are two seperate business entites, and this article is about the former, therefore the article is correct in stating that McCaw is the founder of Clearwire CORP. MarkRomero (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three recent additions to the Criticism section that I deleted

Since all three paragraphs were cited, I wanted to justify my changes, and there wasn't enough room in the edit summary, since all three have something wrong with it.

http://www.clearwiresucks.com is a blog, and is therefore not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

The youtube video demonstrating the lower-than-advertised bandwidth is considered original research and is also not allowed by Wikipedia standards.

The class action lawsuit is more interesting and I almost left it in. However, the citation is from the law firm that is launching the suit, which makes it a primary source, and those are also discouraged on Wikipedia for reasons of undue weight and verifiability. I did a little Googling for "Clearwire class action" and the only relevant hits were for blogs and for the law firm, i.e. no reputable news outlets have covered this lawsuit, so I cannot yet say that it is notable. If and when third party reputable news sources cover the class action lawsuit against Clearwire, it can be added to the article at that time.

I don't want to give the appearance of whitewashing. Based on the numerous blogs and the lawsuit, it does appear that maybe Clearwire is not that hot of an ISP. But to avoid legal implications we need to be very careful about where all the information comes from and that we are confident in standing by our sources. And a blog, a YouTube video, and a statement from a law firm, sorry, those are not sources I can stand by. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do you expect to get sources from for the criticism section, other than blogs and sucks.com communities? I'm not trained in Wikipedia red-tape, I don't have time to become "anyone can edit" certified, but regardless of source the criticism section of this article doesn't reflect reality. And that makes me sad because I came here for information.--75.95.95.227 (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)